Which 3 ct RB would you choose?

[lucky sparkle]

Hi, I''ve been a longtime lurker and I just wanted to say how helpful you all have been. I''m finally taking the plunge to make my big 3 ct purchase (an upgrade

), and I''d love some advice.

I''m looking for a 3 ct GIA triple ex or AGS 000 G/H VS2-SI2 RB. Ideally I would''ve wanted a 34.5 crown angle and 40.8 pavilion angle, but these don''t seem very easy to come by in this carat size. I don''t want to keep searching for months, so I''ve come to terms with having to compromise a little here or a little there.

Here are the three options I''ve been considering:

Stone #1:
3.26 G SI1 (completely eye clean)
GIA triple ex
Table 56%
Total depth 61.4%
Pavilion depth 43.0%
Crown angle 34.0
Pavilion angle 40.8
Lower girdle facets 75%
Star facets 55%
HCA 1.0 TIC
Like the numbers except the crown angle is a little off. But all things considered, this is the one I''m leaning towards.

Stone #2:
3.14 H VS2
GIA triple ex
Table 56%
Total depth 60.8%
Pavilion depth 43.0%
Crown angle 34.5
Pavilion angle 40.6
Lower girdle facets 80%
Star facets 55%
HCA 0.6 TIC
Like the numbers except the pavilion angle is a little off. The main thing keeping me from getting this stone is the color, which is a transitional H/I by independent appraisal. I''ve learned that I''m more color sensitive than I''d like to be.

Stone #3:
3.06 H SI2 (completely eye clean as well, except small feather seen through the pavilion)
AGS 000
Table 55.4%
Total depth 62.2%
Pavilion depth 42.4%
Crown angle 35.6%
Pavilion angle 40.4%
Lower girdle facets 79%
Star facets 51%
HCA 0.8 FIC
This stone is a little different than the other two in terms of the numbers. It''s an FIC, and the appraiser did mention that this one does have more fire than the average ideal cut. The H is a textbook H, so not a problem at all for me in terms of color. This stone also happens to be the most budget friendly.

I''d really appreciate any and all advice or comments. I''d like to have the stone of choice set by Christmas, so I''m hoping to make a decision soon! Thanks so much, everyone.

 

[Ellen]

Welcome! And aren''t you lucky?

I love everything about #1. That gets my vote!

 

[strmrdr]

You have done your homework either 1 or 3.
Which do you like more diamonds on the fiery side or more towards the bright side?
Do you have IS images or heart images for them?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

#1

 

[Mara]

i would say #1 or #2 and not #3. that depth bothers me...i hate losing spread in a pavilion esp on a large stone. who wants a 3c that looks smaller. also i am not a BIC or FIC 'fan', i like TIC's as best of both worlds. i want to see lots of brilliance AND fire and not make sacrifices for either.

i like #1 the best most likely...but #2 could be really nice if that pav does not affect the stone. i like shallower under 61% stones so the specs on #2 are spot on for me except the pav angle could be more like 40.7 or 40.8 for me to be happier. but i have seen some REALLY lovely 40.6's with great specs so i think that seeing something like that in person would be the way to go. but #1 has the G color for you and it's #'s are great...hehe plus it's the biggest. and you know i love that.

it is slim pickins in that range, but i would also say that if you have not yet found your holy grail, to not 'settle'. it's a big purchase so make sure it's what you REALLY want hands down.

 

[lucky sparkle]

Ellen, Storm, DS, and Mara--thank you so much for your input!

It seems that #1 has it. It''s the one I was leaning towards to begin with, and it''s also the one all four of you agreed on, which is very reassuring to me.

And yet...I still have a couple of questions. For instance, how exactly can I expect the 34.0 crown angle to affect the stones performance? From what I''ve read, it seems like the steeper the crown angle, the more firey the stone will be. I really don''t think stone #1 is suffering from a lack of fire in any which way, though. Is there anything else I''m missing then, that I should be concerned about in terms of that crown angle?

And also, will a 75% LGF length mean that there won''t be any discernable pinfire at all? I watched Jonathan''s video on the GOG website about the nature of scintillation, and I think I actually prefer the big flashes of broadfire (seems like it would be more noticeable from a distance?). But at the same time, I don''t want to sacrifice pinfire completely--I''d like to have a little bit at least. Whiteflash actually recommends a LGF length between 75-80% (new line ACA parameters), so on one hand, I feel like everything''s okay. But on the other hand, Jonathan seemed to imply that the longer the LGF (i.e. 80-85%), the better the stone''s performance would be. What''s generally considered the lower end of the threshold for this parameter? Is a 75% LGF something that should potentially hold me back from purchasing a stone?

Thanks again for reading and for all your very helpful responses!

 

[lucky sparkle]

Date: 12/16/2006 4:00:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
You have done your homework either 1 or 3.
Which do you like more diamonds on the fiery side or more towards the bright side?
Do you have IS images or heart images for them?

Hi Storm!

Haha, I''d at least *thought* I''d done my homework, but it''s funny cause there''s always something more to learn!

To answer your question, I really do love a firey stone. But at the same time I don''t want to sacrifice brilliance. Do you happen to know if FICs tend to be lacking that way? Mara mentioned that TIC''s are a nice balance of the two, so maybe that''d be the ''safer'' way to go for me. I was trying to learn more about FICs in general, but it doesn''t seem there''s too much info out there.

Oh and no, unfortunately I don''t have IS or heart images to share. I know those are always good to look at. I will promise though, to share my ring pics when this whole thing comes together and I finally have the rock on my hand!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/17/2006 4:34:27 PM
Author: lucky sparkle
Ellen, Storm, DS, and Mara--thank you so much for your input!

It seems that #1 has it. It''s the one I was leaning towards to begin with, and it''s also the one all four of you agreed on, which is very reassuring to me.

And yet...I still have a couple of questions. For instance, how exactly can I expect the 34.0 crown angle to affect the stones performance? From what I''ve read, it seems like the steeper the crown angle, the more firey the stone will be. I really don''t think stone #1 is suffering from a lack of fire in any which way, though. Is there anything else I''m missing then, that I should be concerned about in terms of that crown angle?

And also, will a 75% LGF length mean that there won''t be any discernable pinfire at all? I watched Jonathan''s video on the GOG website about the nature of scintillation, and I think I actually prefer the big flashes of broadfire (seems like it would be more noticeable from a distance?). But at the same time, I don''t want to sacrifice pinfire completely--I''d like to have a little bit at least. Whiteflash actually recommends a LGF length between 75-80% (new line ACA parameters), so on one hand, I feel like everything''s okay. But on the other hand, Jonathan seemed to imply that the longer the LGF (i.e. 80-85%), the better the stone''s performance would be. What''s generally considered the lower end of the threshold for this parameter? Is a 75% LGF something that should potentially hold me back from purchasing a stone?

Thanks again for reading and for all your very helpful responses!

Hi Lucky!

As for your crown, there''s nothing wrong with a 34, paired with a complimentary PA, which you have. I have a 34/41, and I love it. True, the steeper the CA, you can get a bit more fire, but your stone should have a nice mix of fire and white light.

And about the LGF''s, my stone has just over 75 and I love it. It has both broad flash and pinfire, so you will get both. The broad flash are awesome.

They are noticable from a distance, and very much so in ambient lighting. I would definitely not hold back because of their length.

HTH

 

[Mara]

I think my LGF are 75 and I adore my stone. It''s probably the prettiest I have owned to date. I wouldn''t worry about that crown and pav angle either.

In terms of BIC or FIC...when you go one way or the other you DO sacrifice something. So a FIC would have less brilliance. a BIC would have less fire. Some people just ADORE Brilliance or Fire but having had a BIC''ish kind of stone, I really missed having fire, so a TIC for me is ''best of both worlds''.

 

[lucky sparkle]

Ellen and Mara, you girls are awesome! You''ve made me feel much better about these little details...and I think I''ll be making the purchase tomorrow!

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 12/17/2006 9:53:10 PM
Author: lucky sparkle
Ellen and Mara, you girls are awesome! You''ve made me feel much better about these little details...and I think I''ll be making the purchase tomorrow!

Date: 12/17/2006 9:53:10 PM
Author: lucky sparkle
Ellen and Mara, you girls are awesome! You''ve made me feel much better about these little details...and I think I''ll be making the purchase tomorrow!

It''s going to be beautiful, please come back with pictures!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/17/2006 9:53:10 PM
Author: lucky sparkle
Ellen and Mara, you girls are awesome! You''ve made me feel much better about these little details...and I think I''ll be making the purchase tomorrow!

Please come back and post pics when the ring is done if you can!

 

[lucky sparkle]

Hi kcoursolle and Ellen!

I''ll definitely post pics for you guys! Thanks again for all your advice and encouragement. I love this community.

 

[sevens one]

Date: 12/18/2006 9:00:05 AM
Author: lucky sparkle
Hi kcoursolle and Ellen!

I''ll definitely post pics for you guys! Thanks again for all your advice and encouragement. I love this community.

how''s it going to be set?

(and welcome

)

 

[alamb]

Mara,
I''m confused about your comment on wanting a Depth lower than 61. I am in the process of buying a 3.07 ct that has 61.9 depth%. Are you saying it will look small compared to say a 60.8%? Will the difference be noticable? I''m okay with it, just wanted to be sure I understood your comment.

 

[lucky sparkle]

Date: 12/18/2006 9:16:56 AM
Author: sevens one

Date: 12/18/2006 9:00:05 AM
Author: lucky sparkle
Hi kcoursolle and Ellen!

I''ll definitely post pics for you guys! Thanks again for all your advice and encouragement. I love this community.

how''s it going to be set?

(and welcome

)

Thanks for the welcome, sevens one!

It''s going to be set as a classic Tiffany solitaire, so the stone will take center stage.

 

[Mara]

Date: 12/18/2006 9:24:36 AM
Author: alamb
Mara,
I''m confused about your comment on wanting a Depth lower than 61. I am in the process of buying a 3.07 ct that has 61.9 depth%. Are you saying it will look small compared to say a 60.8%? Will the difference be noticable? I''m okay with it, just wanted to be sure I understood your comment.

hi Alamb...

my preference for a depth under 61 is just a personal preference. under 62 is still considered ideal (depending on the other specs as well) but typically when you have a depth of say 61.9 vs a stone that has a depth of 60.8 with corresponding complimentary table and angles for both of them...the depth is carrying a bit more of the diamonds weight in there. so basically it might look a little bit smaller. you can see this when you compare diameters of similar stones in the search engines.

for example if you look up something that is 1c so it should have a diameter of 6.5mm ideally. let''s say that a stone with a 60.8 depth and a 56 table and corresponding complimentary angles has a diameter of 6.51mm. another stone that has a 62 depth and a 56 table and corresponding complimentary angles might have a diameter of 6.45mm. so basically there is a small diameter difference in the two stones, most likely because of the change in depth.

now these are TINY miniscules of mm''s. but for ME, an admitted size whore, i want all the size i can get up top without sacrificing cut quality. so i always look for stones with depths in 60-61 ideally. of course i have been REALLY LUCKY to find that in the stones i wanted each and every time. but if pickins were hugely slim i would probably make a sacrifice and get a 61.5ish stone if the other numbers were spot on and it was beautiful. you have to go off the inventory that is out there, and sometimes all 10000% of your ideal hopes may not culminate in a stone for you to buy.

as to if the difference would be noticeable, not sure, depends on the stone and the numbers. but the larger the stone, the more visible the ''difference'' MIGHT be. if it''s a smaller stone then the diameter differences in the 10ths would probably not be visible at all. it''s more a ''mind-size'' kinda thing. you mentioned a 3c stone you are considering. try to compare it against a similarly cut stone that has a depth of about 60.8 or similar. it might be a 9.3mm to a 9.5mm kinda thing. and then i think that might be visible. when i was looking at my 2.32 i loved that it had a depth of under 61. i remember a similarly sized stone with a 62ish kinda depth and it was a little smaller, mine is 8.6mm and i think that one was something like 8.5mm. and that 1/10th might have bothered me over time..who knows.

hope this helps. so in no way is the stone you are considering out of wack with it''s depth, but my under 61 is just a personal preference thing for an ''ideal'' purchase.

 

[Mara]

actually here''s an ''extreme'' example.

there are 2 stones up right now on PS.

2c G VS1 AGS0 56/60.6/34.4/40.7: diameter average: 8.18mm
2c J VS2 AGS0 62.1/55.4/34.8/40.9: diameter average: 8.06mm

So two 2c stones. Both at the naked eye to be cut very well. Both under 2 on the HCA. Yet they have the diameter difference of .12mm. Both have thin-med girdles so no weight is hiding in there. It''s the pavilion holding the depth. Put those two stones side by side and you might see one looking bigger than the other. I have seen differences via eye with .10mm in a stone.

But really....12mm is still miniscule. So again for me it''s more a mind-size/clean thing. If I am paying for that size, I want to SEE IT. hehee. But hope this helps anyway.

 

[alamb]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=957283 - Mara, this is the stone - I''d be interested in your thoughts.

Sorry lucky sparkle - didn''t mean to hijack your thread. Good luck w/ your 3 ct too!

 

[Cehrabehra]

I''d pick #3. I love fire!! You''d hold a place of honor here with a 3+ carat fic!! ;D

 

[lucky sparkle]

Date: 12/18/2006 12:41:03 PM
Author: alamb

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=130&item=957283 - Mara, this is the stone - I''d be interested in your thoughts.

Sorry lucky sparkle - didn''t mean to hijack your thread. Good luck w/ your 3 ct too!

Hi Allison,

No need to apologize, I don''t mind at all. Have fun making your purchase and hope everything works out for you!

 

[lucky sparkle]

Date: 12/18/2006 1:33:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
I''d pick #3. I love fire!! You''d hold a place of honor here with a 3+ carat fic!! ;D

Hi Cehrabehra, thanks for the input! I''m pretty set on #1 though. It was a hard decision cause all three stones are beautiful, but I just feel all around more comfortable with the numbers of the first stone. I *love* fire too, but in the end I think I''d want a nice balance of both fire and brilliance, so that helped me make my choice.